Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera
{"title":"在择期非心脏手术前进行风险评估时评估功能能力的临床工具：范围界定综述。","authors":"Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera","doi":"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>None. (Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ah7u5).</p>","PeriodicalId":7932,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":19.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Tools to Assess Functional Capacity During Risk Assessment Before Elective Noncardiac Surgery : A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Julian F Daza, Tyler R Chesney, Juan F Morales, Yuanxin Xue, Sandra Lee, Leandra A Amado, Bianca Pivetta, Arnaud R Mbadjeu Hondjeu, Rachel Jolley, Calvin Diep, Shabbir M H Alibhai, Peter M Smith, Erin D Kennedy, Elizabeth Racz, Luke Wilmshurst, Duminda N Wijeysundera\",\"doi\":\"10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.</p><p><strong>Limitation: </strong>Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.</p><p><strong>Primary funding source: </strong>None. (Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/ah7u5).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7932,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":19.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Internal Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00413","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical Tools to Assess Functional Capacity During Risk Assessment Before Elective Noncardiac Surgery : A Scoping Review.
Background: Functional capacity is critical to preoperative risk assessment, yet guidance on its measurement in clinical practice remains lacking.
Purpose: To identify functional capacity assessment tools studied before surgery and characterize the extent of evidence regarding performance, including in populations where assessment is confounded by noncardiopulmonary reasons.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews (until July 2024).
Study selection: Studies evaluating performance of functional capacity assessment tools administered before elective noncardiac surgery to stratify risk for postoperative outcomes.
Data extraction: Study details, measurement properties, pragmatic qualities, and/or clinical utility metrics.
Data synthesis: 6 categories of performance-based tests and 5 approaches using patient-reported exercise tolerance were identified. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was the most studied tool (132 studies, 32 662 patients) followed by field walking tests (58 studies, 9393 patients) among performance-based tests. Among patient-reported assessments, the Duke Activity Status Index (14 studies, 3303 patients) and unstructured assessments (19 studies, 28 520 patients) were most researched. Most evidence focused on predictive validity (92% of studies), specifically accuracy in predicting cardiorespiratory complications. Several tools lacked evidence on reliability (test consistency across similar measurements), pragmatic qualities (feasibility of implementation), or concurrent criterion validity (correlation to gold standard). Only CPET had evidence on clinical utility (whether administration improved postoperative outcomes). Older adults (≥65 years) were well represented across studies, whereas there were minimal data in patients with obesity, lower-limb arthritis, and disability.
Limitation: Synthesis focused on reported data without requesting missing information.
Conclusion: Though several tools for preoperative functional capacity assessment have been studied, research has overwhelmingly focused on CPET and only 1 aspect of validity (predictive validity). Important evidence gaps remain among vulnerable populations with obesity, arthritis, and physical disability.
期刊介绍：
Established in 1927 by the American College of Physicians (ACP), Annals of Internal Medicine is the premier internal medicine journal. Annals of Internal Medicine’s mission is to promote excellence in medicine, enable physicians and other health care professionals to be well informed members of the medical community and society, advance standards in the conduct and reporting of medical research, and contribute to improving the health of people worldwide. To achieve this mission, the journal publishes a wide variety of original research, review articles, practice guidelines, and commentary relevant to clinical practice, health care delivery, public health, health care policy, medical education, ethics, and research methodology. In addition, the journal publishes personal narratives that convey the feeling and the art of medicine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
